Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Alf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:06 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#31

Post by Alf » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am



yakadoo
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:46 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#32

Post by yakadoo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 am

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am
Okay, I'll ask a completely simple question because the name of the court confuses me. Is the lawsuit filed in a NEVADA STATE COURT or A FEDERAL COURT?
It appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#33

Post by K.Mooneyham » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:00 am
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:46 am
Okay, I'll ask a completely simple question because the name of the court confuses me. Is the lawsuit filed in a NEVADA STATE COURT or A FEDERAL COURT?
It appears to be a federal district court, as the case has been assigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon.
Thank you for the information.

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?


yakadoo
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:46 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#34

Post by yakadoo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#35

Post by K.Mooneyham » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 am

yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.
Again, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle", since most people on this forum understand that "assault rifle" is a term that counts the ability to select fire (full-auto or burst in addition to semi-automatic operation) among its defining features? The whole point of the term "assault weapon" was to create a "weasel words" term to mimic the specific definition of assault rifle but without the pesky FACT of those rifles NOT being capable of automatic or burst fire getting in the way. Thus none of the rifles reportedly used in the Vegas crime were actually "assault rifles". I'm sure the lawyers for the plaintiff have something up their proverbial sleeves, but it may not be the ace card they think they have.


dlh
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#36

Post by dlh » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:21 am

In my opinion the case should be tossed.
Whether an AR15 qualifies as an "automatic weapon" should itself go through the same administrative review and determination that bump stocks went through. The plaintiffs are probably trotting out the "private attorney general" doctrine to see if that will stick.
Will certainly keep my eye on this case.
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.

User avatar

Grumpy1993
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#37

Post by Grumpy1993 » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:44 am

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:12 am
yakadoo wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:12 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:08 am

New question: what gives the plaintiff(s) standing to bring that lawsuit?
According to the filing (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... -FILED.pdf), the plaintiffs have standing as the heirs of one of the victims.
Again, thank you for the information. I notice that the court filing specifically uses the phrase "assault rifle" versus the more commonly used "assault weapon". So, what will happen when expert industry witnesses are called to testify as to the term "assault rifle"
Nothing. If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.
Bonnen Lied
Gun Rights Died


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#38

Post by K.Mooneyham » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:10 pm

Alright, y'all win. I get the message. I'll stop asking questions.

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#39

Post by tbrown » Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:06 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:20 pm
Bump firing is a shooting technique. If bump firing is bad, because we want to limit the rate of fire, then it's a very, very, slippery slope that does not end well.
Tell it to DJT and WLP. They're the ones who shoved gun owners down that slippery slope.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#40

Post by tbrown » Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:10 pm

Alf wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:51 am
For informational purposes only.
Image

:mrgreen:
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country


MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#41

Post by MeMelYup » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:47 pm

If they ever make semi-auto rifles unlawful, a person only needs a tap to thread the gas block and a set screw. All semi-auto rifles will then be bolt action. Don’t have to drown them in a lake. I still prefer semi-auto.


kayt00
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:15 pm
Location: DFW Area

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#42

Post by kayt00 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:55 pm

MeMelYup wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:47 pm
If they ever make semi-auto rifles unlawful, a person only needs a tap to thread the gas block and a set screw. All semi-auto rifles will then be bolt action. Don’t have to drown them in a lake. I still prefer semi-auto.
There is always the KaliKey option.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Nevermind...
All lost in a tragic kayaking incident.
Bring back BitterClinger


NotRPB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 8:24 am

Re: Lawsuit argues AR-15 illegal

#43

Post by NotRPB » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:37 am

If words mattered, the right of ordinary people to own and carry weapons would not be infringed by NFA in the first place.
My mom was a writer who objected to a song called "Words" because she said words matter.

More on topic: I thought an AR-15 was a "Defense rifle" not one for assaulting.
Controlling verbage/terminology/word choice/Diction is half the political battle for persuading the masses who vote
.
from AR-15.com
26-Years-Ago-Roof-Koreans-appeared-The-Guns-of-the-92-L-A-Riots
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/26- ... 5-2104357/




Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”